Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Pd. and Ravi Ranjan JJ. 1. All these applications arise out of a common order and as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 2. Short facts giving rise to these applications are that Custom officials on 15.3.1998 seized sixteen pieces of gold biscuits from the cabin of a truck. Awadhesh Kumar Thakur, who was in the truck, stated that gold biscuits belonged to one Vijay Kumar Son of Kapildeo Prasad and the driver of the truck, namely, Brij Kishore Parit (Pandit) did not had knowledge about it. The Commissioner of Customs by order dated 22.6.2001 directed for confiscation of the gold biscuits. He also passed order for confiscation of the truck with an option to the owner to redeem the same on payment of redemption fees of Rs. forty thousand. It also inflicted personal penalty of Rs. Ten thousand, fifty thousand, twenty thousand and one thousand upon Awadhesh Kumar Thakur, Kapildeo Prasad, Vijay Kumar and Brij Kishore Parit respectively. 3. Aggrieved by the same all of them preferred separate appeals before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 18.2.2002 had allowed all the appeals and set aside the order of confiscation and imposition of personal penalty. 4. The Commissioner of Customs has preferred these applications under Section 130A of the Customs Act making a prayer before this Court to refer the questions of law mentioned therein, which had arised from the order of the Tribunal. 5. By order dated 10.7.2006 these applications were admitted for hearing but neither any question of law was drawn or the Tribunal was asked to draw up a statement of case and refer the same to this Court. 6. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, for the petitioner. Each of the respondent is represented by Mr. Surendra Kumar. 7. While assailing the order of the Tribunal, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh contends that the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the plea put forth by claimant Kapildeo Prasad that the gold biscuits belonged to him and were legally purchased. He points out that vouchers showed sale of T.T. Bars, whereas the seized gold was in the form of biscuits. Variation in weight and purity was also pointed out to show that the vouchers produced by claimant was not worthy of reliance. He points out that vouchers showed sale of T.T. Bars, whereas the seized gold was in the form of biscuits. Variation in weight and purity was also pointed out to show that the vouchers produced by claimant was not worthy of reliance. The Tribunal on appraisal of the materials came to the conclusion that in business world there is no distinction between biscuits and bars and further discrepancies of 2 grams in 16 pieces of biscuits shall not make the vouchers to be unworthy of reliance. 8. It is well settled that this Court interferes with the finding of fact only when it is shown that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse, meaning thereby that the finding has been recorded without considering the relevant material or considering irrelevant material or a person duly instructed in law will not come to that finding. 9. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has recorded the finding on consideration of relevant material and cannot be said to be perverse. 10. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these applications and they are dismissed accordingly.